Reply With Quote
I would be interested to know, but the price of asking is too high. I dislike an endless colloquy.
He certainly refuses to say he wants them all brought to justice.
Ask him.
I would be interested to know, but the price of asking is too high. I dislike an endless colloquy.
Bartleby the Scrivener
"Dead wall reverie"
to refuse to answer is a distinctive, maybe even a con uous choice.
in a way it is sort of charming if Sputacular can't stand to tell a lie about what he secretly believes. it's a sort of loyalty that stills his tongue even from lying.
Blakehole all up cherp's butthole on this.
voted presentBlakehole all up cherp's butthole on this.
again
anti-compe ive tech is the real threat
FAANG are common carriers; it's time to treat them as such to stop anti-compe ive abuses
https://harpers.org/archive/2020/09/...ortion-racket/For a century and a half, Americans used common carrier policies to ensure the rule of law in activities that depended on privately held monopolies. These rules served as a pillar of American prosperity through much of the twentieth century. By neutralizing the power of all essential transport and communications systems, the regulations freed Americans to take full advantage of every important network technology introduced during these years, including telephones, water and electrical services, energy pipelines, and even large, logistics-powered retailers. Citizens did not have to worry that the men who controlled the technologies involved would exploit their middleman position to steal other people’s business or disrupt balances of power.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Robert Bork, Richard Posner, and other neoliberal Chicago School legal scholars set out to overturn America’s antimonopoly regime, targeting the traditional prohibitions on discrimination that common carrier laws had established. Their scholarship later played a major role in the writing of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. In that bill, Congress simultaneously exempted internet platforms from any responsibility to police the content on their sites, and failed entirely to impose on them any requirement to provide equal and just service to all who depend on their networks.
As a result, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and other platforms were free to develop business models that treated every seller and buyer—every citizen—differently. These corporations exploited this license to the fullest, and have used their power to reorganize entire realms of human activity. Amazon, Google, and Facebook match individuals to specific shoes and clothes, specific restaurants and hotels, specific movies and music, specific jobs and schools, specific drugs and hospitals, specific sexual partners, and even specific books, articles, speakers, and sources of news.
These companies are the most powerful middlemen in history. Each guards the gate to innumerable sources of essential information, services, and products. Yet thus far no governmental en y in the United States has signaled any intention of limiting the license these corporations enjoy to serve only the customers they choose to, at whatever price they decide.
This means that Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg enjoy much the same power as God did in Babel. We live in the world they manufacture for us.
Back in the day, Walmart’s goal was simply to force manufacturers to offer it lower prices in order to undersell and bankrupt rival retailers. Now that Amazon has effectively killed off all its online rivals, its model is to pit every seller and trader on its website against one another in a carefully orchestrated scramble to be placed first before the eyeballs of the busy buyer. Amazon gets to sell both access to the market and protection from its own thuggish behavior.
dynamic pricing power?
Thus far, Amazon has profited mainly from the same model used by the railroads in the nineteenth century, during those periods when their bosses were able to skirt common carrier rules. Bezos’s message to sellers is simple: I control the road to the market. If you want to ride, you pay what I demand.
Under such a system, the consumer is manipulated in ways that enable Amazon to charge the seller more. The harms to the consumer—such as being steered to buy an inferior product or a less interesting book—are byproducts of a system designed to exploit the seller.
But Amazon’s license to discriminate is fast moving into something else, a system where each consumer is charged the maximum amount that he or she can pay.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020...oly-power.htmlA final development, and I must confess to needing to read the court filings to do it justice, is the brazen effort by Apple and now Google to crush games giant Fortnite for trying to go around the app store choke points. “Tying,” or requiring the buyer of one product (like Apple products) to buy other products (apps only through them) is a per se violation of anti-trust laws. Fortnite would seem to have a very strong case, but Apple has just said it is also cutting Fortnite off from developer tools by August 28.
Even big player like Fortnite can’t afford to wage this legal war unless it gets an emergency injunction. But this sort of thuggery usually happens less visibly and with companies too small to do anything other than capitulate. If Fortnite can get the courts to restrain Apple and Google while they duke it out in court, expect this to be a very important case. Let’s hope Fortnite can afford to proceed.
market concentration corrates with inequality and unstable markets, according to some Marxist-Leninists at the Federal Reserve
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econr...2020057pap.pdfWe develop a theoretical model in which the income distribution is endogenously determined byfirms’ market power in both product and labor markets and the probability of financial crisis isendogenously determined by the ac ulation of household credit. Using the model, we analyze thetransitional dynamics of an economy undergoing structural changes in product and labor markets.We find that the secular rise of firms’ market power in both product and labor markets can bean important driver behind a few secular trends experienced by the U.S. economy in the last four29decades: the decrease in both the labor share and the capital share, the increase in the profit share,the increase in income inequality, the increase in credit-to-GDP ratio, and the associated rise infinancial instability summarized by the probability of a financial crisis event. We also show thatredistribution policies that moderate income inequality can be used as strong macroprudential toolsin preventing financial crises.
dime dropped on Saudi dissidents by KSA spies working for Twitter
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...sident-arrests
Amazon, post-bad press, drops non-disparagement clause for podcasters
https://pitchfork.com/news/amazon-mu...parage-amazon/
Google sent user information to a Northern California counterterrorism fusion team. This is from the Blueleaks trove.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo... ents-reveal
Ben Shapiro dominates FB compared to the MSM
Elon Musk has updated his NeuraLink brain implant:
It’s “like a Fitbit in your skull with tiny wires,” Musk said. The device can pair with a smartphone app over Bluetooth Low Energy, he said.
Spurtacular, Chumpettes been snitching. Chumpettes need their safe space. Chumpettes not bothered at all.
Spurtacular, Chumpettes been snitching. Chumpettes need their safe space. Chumpettes not bothered at all.
Legal liability is real and a legit concern for sustainability of business. So is reputation.
Spurtacular, Chumpettes been snitching. Chumpettes need their safe space. Chumpettes not bothered at all.
Sorry you're going though this, TGY.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
